Well, when I said "become standard", I was thinking about ~200$.
Do mainstream screens really have to be that much more expensive?
Mainstream? No, certainly not, but I just picked up a PB287Q for 500$ and its well worth it imo, when 4k is available for those prices I'll look into it, till then its not even worthy of time unless its for people who need the screen real(business) estate or those with more money than sense
I release this is newer tech, but seriously 1080p has been standard for the last what 5-10 years they had plenty of time to increase resolution size in that time period.
These monitors should all ready be priced in the $200 range frankly especially considering the price fixing the LCD monitor makers were found guilty of consumers got scroogled and trust me many of us haven't forgotten these can't be that much more expensive and difficult to manufacturer.
A co-worker has a 21:9 monitor, mostly for SAP and Excel spreadsheets that require dozens of columns of data. It works for that, but the vertical depth is lacking compared to my 30" 2560x1600 16:10. It's a tradeoff. I can see where this would come in handy for gaming, watching movies (made in that format), and whatnot, but it depends on how you use your monitor at work in a "professional" environment. I prefer to have more vertical space for reading documents (and emails), programming windows that are open for coding, etc.
Call me when you get back to 16:10 Wider is only better if it's on my car. While you're at it make it illegal to show a black bar on my TV anywhere for any reason. Also (LOL, yeah got more wishes), if you want my money for any TV season etc in the future, put a SEASON on bluray instead of 5-7 dvd's with crap 480p. Why does netflix show me 720 or 1080p but amazon etc sells the same show ONLY in dvd on tons of discs?
How hard is it to sell me the HD version or at least put 5 dvd's on a bluray saving me craploads of space from discs. If you force customers to do this themselves you shouldn't be surprised when they sell the 5-7 dvd season a second after they merge them to bluray. They now have two copies of the same show, and all they wanted was FEWER discs or HD. If you merge the dvd's to a bluray, just leave them untouched (no need to squish SD vids, when 5 fit on one disc easily).
I have no need for anything but 16:10 monitors unless NONE are available when I buy next year. I understand how this works on an IT helpdesk (we have wide needs with spreadsheets etc of lots of data) etc, but on the web WIDE just sucks. Most pages are made for 1024x768 (you can zoom it, but that often doesn't produce good results even in full page zoom). We need more height on the web. If I full zoom a 1024x768 page on my 1920x1200 monitor I end up with a very short page top to bottom already, never mind the HUGE complaints I'd have on an even WIDER screen. No thanks pal.
Anyone hoping for these to ever be at average monitor prices need to get a reality check. The 30" monitor market (that's monitor, not TV) has always and probably will always be reserved for the high end $1000+ enthusiast and enterprise market. When they start showing off 20" 4k monitors, than you can start getting your hopes up for normalcy.
1080p took nearly 7 years from its introduction to high end consumers to finally break through into the low cost monitor market. Hate to burst your bubble but it's going to be a long wait since 4k is currently where 1080p was at in 2004.
Unless that girl is a miniature, that 21:9 screen does look to have some decent vertical. If its at least as tall and a regular 27" screen then this will more than make up for the last 29" version that looked so squashed